The Hobgood pick

[QBsILLEST1]

So guys, its been a little while since we took Hobgood with our first pick in the 2009 draft. When it was first said that we may take Matt, many of us were shocked, probably all of us were shocked. Now after reading up on the kid, reading reports on him, his ability, and his character, what do you guys think about the pick?

I admitedly was unhappy initially, but I was probably one of the first few who really began to like the idea of what he brings to the system. He has #1/2 stuff which is comparable or better than the other 1st tier prep arms and a real inteligent head on his shoulders, not someone we have to worry about getting a DUI or being charged in a dog fighting ring. I really look forward to what he can do on the mound, he sounds like a real competitor, and if you compare him and his stuff to our other potential at the time #5 pick, Wheeler, they are rather interchangeable, atleast to me. Im under the belief that Hobgood's stuff is better than Wheeler's, its just that Wheeler has a bit more projection. But if I was gonna be happy with Wheeler, then Id be happy with Hobgood, and I am.....Welcome our new highest ceiling pitcher to our system, once he signs that is.....

[Can_of_corn]

I understand the balance of talent vs cost that resulted in this pick. I will agree that Hobgood seems like a fine, upstanding young man. I do wish however that Baltimore had been willing to pay for one of the top 5 prep arms talent wise. I have seen too many reports both before and after the draft to believe that JJ honestly thought Hobgood was the best choice without factoring in economics.

The reality is the O's are obviously working with an overall budget that is lower then I thought they would have. Given the restraints he is under I do think JJ made a good pick.

[Lucky Jim]

I understand the balance of talent vs cost that resulted in this pick. I will agree that Hobgood seems like a fine, upstanding young man. I do wish however that Baltimore had been willing to pay for one of the top 5 prep arms talent wise. I have seen too many reports both before and after the draft to believe that JJ honestly thought Hobgood was the best choice without factoring in economics.

The reality is the O's are obviously working with an overall budget that is lower then I thought they would have. Given the restraints he is under I do think JJ made a good pick.

Obviously economics are a factor. They should be. They have to be. For instance: would you say that it's worth paying 2x as much for a prospect who is only 10% better?

[Can_of_corn]

Obviously economics are a factor. They should be. They have to be. For instance: would you say that it's worth paying 2x as much for a prospect who is only 10% better?

If you have the money to burn then yes it is. That 10% better might be the difference in a kid making the major leagues or not. That 10% might mean a kid goes 20-4 one year instead of 16-8 and the team makes the playoffs.

When a pick like Matzek is asking for what the O's pay Baez for a season I don't see an issue. I think the draft is by far the cheapest way to build a team. Seven million for a relief pitcher for a year versus seven million for a kid with fair chance of being an impact player under team control for seven seasons.

[Lucky Jim]

If you have the money to burn then yes it is. That 10% better might be the difference in a kid making the major leagues or not. That 10% might mean a kid goes 20-4 one year instead of 16-8 and the team makes the playoffs.

When a pick like Matzek is asking for what the O's pay Baez for a season I don't see an issue. I think the draft is by far the cheapest way to build a team. Seven million for a relief pitcher for a year versus seven million for a kid with fair chance of being an impact player under team control for seven seasons.

Okay. And at what differential does the determination that it's not worth it set in? 1%? 5%? (The percentiles are hypothetical - I was really referring to, say, a 3.30 ERA and a 3.6 ERA, but it's just hypothetical.)

The draft may always be the cheapest way to add talent, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be efficient in your spending and/or choices.

If you're going to lose time in negotiating w/ a 1st round pick, run the risk of not being able to sign him due to high demands, and end up paying a serious premium, he needs to be considerably better than the alternative.

Economics always have to be a consideration. They just shouldn't be the primary consideration.

[Lucky Jim]

If you have the money to burn then yes it is. That 10% better might be the difference in a kid making the major leagues or not. That 10% might mean a kid goes 20-4 one year instead of 16-8 and the team makes the playoffs.

When a pick like Matzek is asking for what the O's pay Baez for a season I don't see an issue. I think the draft is by far the cheapest way to build a team. Seven million for a relief pitcher for a year versus seven million for a kid with fair chance of being an impact player under team control for seven seasons.

Who has money to burn?

[Lucky Jim]

If you have the money to burn then yes it is. That 10% better might be the difference in a kid making the major leagues or not. That 10% might mean a kid goes 20-4 one year instead of 16-8 and the team makes the playoffs.

When a pick like Matzek is asking for what the O's pay Baez for a season I don't see an issue. I think the draft is by far the cheapest way to build a team. Seven million for a relief pitcher for a year versus seven million for a kid with fair chance of being an impact player under team control for seven seasons.

How do you define "fair"?

Sorry about the multiple posts - I'm a spazz.

[Can_of_corn]

Who has money to burn?

A year or two ago I would have thought the Orioles would have. The payroll has been going steadily down the last few years and they have added MASN. Obviously factors are at work beyond the lowered attendence effecting the Orioles' ability to spend money.

Overall I think every team would reap benefits from increased investment in the draft, as long as most teams don't choose to. For instance I would never invest in a FA relief pitcher (only exception would be if I already had a Reveria/Papelbon and I was retaining him) the numbers don't support it. I would fill bullpen slots with young power arms from the system, arms that were most likely added by paying overslot for high school kids.

Edit- Yea Jim I am not a plus member yet so I will edit instead of posting again. The number questions you are throwing out..what %, what is a fair chance.. Those are not easily quantifiable. The team as a whole would have to decide where they risk/reward is, the Orioles did decide that I just disagree with the decision, and as someone that doesn't have a fraction of the information they have I am not ripping them about it. You asked about twice the cost for 10% more ability, that is a risk I would be willing to take in the abstract.

[Lucky Jim]

A year or two ago I would have thought the Orioles would have. The payroll has been going steadily down the last few years and they have added MASN. Obviously factors are at work beyond the lowered attendence effecting the Orioles' ability to spend money.

Overall I think every team would reap benefits from increased investment in the draft, as long as most teams don't choose to. For instance I would never invest in a FA relief pitcher (only exception would be if I already had a Reveria/Papelbon and I was retaining him) the numbers don't support it. I would fill bullpen slots with young power arms from the system, arms that were most likely added by paying overslot for high school kids.

Edit- Yea Jim I am not a plus member yet so I will edit instead of posting again. The number questions you are throwing out..what %, what is a fair chance.. Those are not easily quantifiable. The team as a whole would have to decide where they risk/reward is, the Orioles did decide that I just disagree with the decision, and as someone that doesn't have a fraction of the information they have I am not ripping them about it. You asked about twice the cost for 10% more ability, that is a risk I would be willing to take in the abstract.

Yeah. I regretted that immediately.

[QBsILLEST1]

Ill be the 1st to say that IMO Matzek was the best prep arm, but after that its a free forall. Hobgood's stuff is IMO as good as a guy like Wheeler or Turner, heck, I take Hobgood's package of stuff and intangibles over Miller's all day. Maybe if Hobgood were asking for 5 mill and we picked him people would be happier because the O's spent money. His stuff is right up there with the rest of the highest ranked prep arms yet Hobgood got the least amount of love from BA and other sources. Seriously, pitch by pitch comparing Hobgood to the others he would rank equal to 5 of the top 6 and slightly under Matzek, so why are people so down on this pick?

The money saved here, if its 3 milliion can net us 6-8 more prospects, probably more HS pitchers. Looking at the draft as a whole rather than the 1st pick and thats it also could make a difference in many people's thinking. These HS arms are so close in skill and ability, that its not really about where they stand right now as it is, but how our player development will take over from here and transform this pick into a TOR starter or a bust. With Hobgood's mature mind and his stuff, Joe Jordan thought that he had the best chance of obtaining his ceiling, which is the same for all of these HS kids, TOR starter, so why not save the $$. You can have all the skill in the world, but if you arent up to par mentally, youll never make it on the mound.....

[mark_beckens]

A year or two ago I would have thought the Orioles would have. The payroll has been going steadily down the last few years and they have added MASN. Obviously factors are at work beyond the lowered attendence effecting the Orioles' ability to spend money.

Overall I think every team would reap benefits from increased investment in the draft, as long as most teams don't choose to. For instance I would never invest in a FA relief pitcher (only exception would be if I already had a Reveria/Papelbon and I was retaining him) the numbers don't support it. I would fill bullpen slots with young power arms from the system, arms that were most likely added by paying overslot for high school kids.

Edit- Yea Jim I am not a plus member yet so I will edit instead of posting again. The number questions you are throwing out..what %, what is a fair chance.. Those are not easily quantifiable. The team as a whole would have to decide where they risk/reward is, the Orioles did decide that I just disagree with the decision, and as someone that doesn't have a fraction of the information they have I am not ripping them about it. You asked about twice the cost for 10% more ability, that is a risk I would be willing to take in the abstract.

It's real easy to say spend more money, when it's not your's, isn't it?

I'd rather have Hobgood at $3 million and sign 3 or 4 other players who have the ability to make the show with the money we saved by not drafting a player who would have wanted $6 million. Seems like simple math to me. And what if the player you draft for 6 million blows out his arm and never makes the show, not only do you lose him but the other players you couldn't afford to sign, cause you drafted him and paid him so much.

[Can_of_corn]

It's real easy to say spend more money, when it's not your's, isn't it?

I'd rather have Hobgood at $3 million and sign 3 or 4 other players who have the ability to make the show with the money we saved by not drafting a player who would have wanted $6 million. Seems like simple math to me. And what if the player you draft for 6 million blows out his arm and never makes the show, not only do you lose him but the other players you couldn't afford to sign, cause you drafted him and paid him so much.

I am pretty sure I have been making it clear in my posts that it is not my money and that I am not privy to the O's budget.

I will say that I would not have spent money on Hendrickson, I instead would have spent that money on overslot draft picks.

It is not a matter of spending more money per se, it is more about how the money is spent.

As for your injury issue, sorry unless you are targeting pitchers with injury issues that drop and paying them overslot (which I would consider on a case by case basis) it isn't a kosher argument. Players get hurt all the time and fear of injury to players that have no history of injury can not be a guiding principal. If that is the case why should the O's spend 2.5 million on Hobgood? He might get hurt, why not just spend 50K each on round 20+ talent for all 50 rounds?

[Crazysilver03]

If that is the case why should the O's spend 2.5 million on Hobgood? He might get hurt, why not just spend 50K each on round 20+ talent for all 50 rounds?

Because there isn't enough room on all of the rosters to add that many players, most of which would be released within the next two or three years anyway.

[bird watcher]

Obviously economics are a factor. They should be. They have to be. For instance: would you say that it's worth paying 2x as much for a prospect who is (might be) only 10% better?

You would make your point better if you inserted the term "Might be" instead of "Is".

The tricky thing with prospects is you don't know what you are buying. Because of that, you have to factor in the risk with the purchase. Surefire prospects often don't pan out as such and lackluster prospects often turn out better.

[Lucky Jim]

You would make your point better if you inserted the term "Might be" instead of "Is".

The tricky thing with prospects is you don't know what you are buying. Because of that, you have to factor in the risk with the purchase. Surefire prospects often don't pan out as such and lackluster prospects often turn out better.

I was thinking that the probabilistic component was built into the actual probability.